Limitation in pending tax assessments under a repealed statute applied under the new regime, rendering late orders time-barred.

The Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 repealed the earlier sales tax law while saving pending proceedings, and the limitation period under the new Act applied to assessments carried forward from the repealed regime. Because limitation is procedural, it governed the pending assessment proceedings, but it could not revive a barred claim or extend time absent a stay. The Act allowed three years for completion of assessment, computed from the commencement of the new regime for pending pre-2003 assessments. The assessment orders were passed after expiry of that period, so the High Court held them barred by limitation and upheld their setting aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether assessment orders passed in 2009 for assessment years 1999-2000 to 2002-03 were barred by limitation in proceedings initiated under the repealed Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and governed by the repeal-and-saving provisions of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: Section 61(1) of the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 repealed the earlier Act while saving rights, liabilities, acts done and arrears, and Section 61(2)(a) transferred pending proceedings to the corresponding authority under the new Act. The law of limitation was treated as procedural and therefore ordinarily retrospective, but not so as to revive a time-barred right or disturb a vested right. On that basis, the limitation provisions introduced under the Haryana Value Added Tax Act, 2003 governed the pending assessment proceedings that had been initiated under the repealed law. The Act prescribed a three-year limitation for completion of assessment, and that period was computed from the commencement of the new Act for pending pre-2003 assessments. The impugned orders were passed after expiry of that period. Pendency of the writ proceedings did not extend limitation because there was no stay on the assessment proceedings.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were barred by limitation and were correctly set aside.

---